What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4639813 about?

The tribunal order states: Linda Rose Dawber and Dean Matthew Hardy are to pay the respondents

How much money was awarded in case 4639813?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639813?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639813?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9707705-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4639813 about?

The tribunal order states: Linda Rose Dawber and Dean Matthew Hardy are to pay the respondents

How much money was awarded in case 4639813?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639813?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639813?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9707705-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

515 Finlays Road, West Melton, RD 5, West Melton 7675 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4639813 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639813. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
that the distributions that the bond centre has made are correct and no further money must be paid by either party. 3. T	$100.00		that the distributions that the bond centre has made are correct and no further money must be paid by either party. 3. T

Order

Linda Rose Dawber and Dean Matthew Hardy are to pay the respondents exemplary damages of $750.
The effect of order 1 is that the distributions that the bond centre has made are correct and no further money must be paid by either party.
The additional $100 bond lodged with respect to the tenancy address is in regard to a previous tenancy and not therefore relevant to the issues before the Tribunal this morning.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was convened to consider only the issue of exemplary damages for not lodging the bond within the timeframes required. Ms Dawber attended by telephone.
The facts are not disputed; the tenants paid a bond into the landlord’s account in April 2022. The bond from was returned by the tenants on 22 May 2022. The delay being, in part, because the tenants had COVID. Ms Dawber said the bond was paid into her partner Mr Hardy’s account.
The tenants then gave notice in May 2023 at which time the landlords became aware the bond was not lodged.
There was a dispute over what was a fair amount to deduct for a vanity that was damaged during the tenancy. The landlords wanted $1,317 in compensation and the tenants thought $300 was fair. It was agreed a small amount of rent was owing and could be deducted.
Ms Dawber says that the bond was not sent off as they simply forgot; “shit happens” was her summary. She also said that had the tenants not been so nitpicky about what was a fair deduction for the vanity damage then the matter would never have needed to come to the Tribunal. She would have simply deducted the $1,317 and that would have been that.
Ms Dawber said that she has been a landlord for about 30 years and had loads of tenancies and she thinks the $750 awarded is excessive.
The tenant said that the matter had been very stressful for he and his wife. They did not agree with the excessive amount claimed for the vanity repairs and when they questioned that the dispute escalated. They also had the stress of having to find another bond for their next property and have now had to attend a number of hearings to have the issue resolved. They consider that the $750 is about right and fair having looked at a number of other Tribunal orders which are around that range. The Law
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).

What is a fair level of exemplary damages?

In my view $750 is appropriate. The landlords are experienced (over 30 years and multiple tenancies) and as explained to Ms Dawber at the hearing, need to have better systems in place to ensure bonds are lodged. The explanation that life or in this case the more descriptive “shit” happens is far from adequate. The landlord was reminded of the obligation when the lodgement form was returned by the tenants about three weeks after the tenancy began. It is apparent that the system in place was not adequate.
Further aggravating factors in this case were 1) Ms Dawber’s failure to appreciate the seriousness of the obligation a landlord has when dealing with a tenant’s money to send it to an independent third party. She did not think fines should attract at all and failed to appreciate the seriousness of the obligation at all. 2) The reason for the requirement to lodge bonds being that if a dispute arises one party does not have the upper hand as they have the bond. Ms Dawber’s view therefore that the tenants were “nitpicky” not to have simply agreed to pay more than $1,300 to replace the vanity, when they thought, and ultimately the Tribunal agreed, that $300 was fair compensation, simply highlights the importance of an independent process to resolve disputes that might later arise.
As the $750 award previously made is confirmed, albeit that the aggravating factors differ from those outlined in the first order, neither party needs to pay the other anything further. I note in this respect that I accept Ms Dawber spoke to tenancy services when the claim was lodged and was advised that she did not then need to lodge the bond at that time, so that is not a factor considered.
I note finally that if further bonds are not lodged then the exemplary damages award is likely to be higher. The landlord’s name is therefore to be published. As the tenants’ bond money more than covered their liability the tenants name is not to be published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639813. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
that the distributions that the bond centre has made are correct and no further money must be paid by either party. 3. T	$100.00		that the distributions that the bond centre has made are correct and no further money must be paid by either party. 3. T

Order

Linda Rose Dawber and Dean Matthew Hardy are to pay the respondents exemplary damages of $750.
The effect of order 1 is that the distributions that the bond centre has made are correct and no further money must be paid by either party.
The additional $100 bond lodged with respect to the tenancy address is in regard to a previous tenancy and not therefore relevant to the issues before the Tribunal this morning.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was convened to consider only the issue of exemplary damages for not lodging the bond within the timeframes required. Ms Dawber attended by telephone.
The facts are not disputed; the tenants paid a bond into the landlord’s account in April 2022. The bond from was returned by the tenants on 22 May 2022. The delay being, in part, because the tenants had COVID. Ms Dawber said the bond was paid into her partner Mr Hardy’s account.
The tenants then gave notice in May 2023 at which time the landlords became aware the bond was not lodged.
There was a dispute over what was a fair amount to deduct for a vanity that was damaged during the tenancy. The landlords wanted $1,317 in compensation and the tenants thought $300 was fair. It was agreed a small amount of rent was owing and could be deducted.
Ms Dawber says that the bond was not sent off as they simply forgot; “shit happens” was her summary. She also said that had the tenants not been so nitpicky about what was a fair deduction for the vanity damage then the matter would never have needed to come to the Tribunal. She would have simply deducted the $1,317 and that would have been that.
Ms Dawber said that she has been a landlord for about 30 years and had loads of tenancies and she thinks the $750 awarded is excessive.
The tenant said that the matter had been very stressful for he and his wife. They did not agree with the excessive amount claimed for the vanity repairs and when they questioned that the dispute escalated. They also had the stress of having to find another bond for their next property and have now had to attend a number of hearings to have the issue resolved. They consider that the $750 is about right and fair having looked at a number of other Tribunal orders which are around that range. The Law
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).

What is a fair level of exemplary damages?

In my view $750 is appropriate. The landlords are experienced (over 30 years and multiple tenancies) and as explained to Ms Dawber at the hearing, need to have better systems in place to ensure bonds are lodged. The explanation that life or in this case the more descriptive “shit” happens is far from adequate. The landlord was reminded of the obligation when the lodgement form was returned by the tenants about three weeks after the tenancy began. It is apparent that the system in place was not adequate.
Further aggravating factors in this case were 1) Ms Dawber’s failure to appreciate the seriousness of the obligation a landlord has when dealing with a tenant’s money to send it to an independent third party. She did not think fines should attract at all and failed to appreciate the seriousness of the obligation at all. 2) The reason for the requirement to lodge bonds being that if a dispute arises one party does not have the upper hand as they have the bond. Ms Dawber’s view therefore that the tenants were “nitpicky” not to have simply agreed to pay more than $1,300 to replace the vanity, when they thought, and ultimately the Tribunal agreed, that $300 was fair compensation, simply highlights the importance of an independent process to resolve disputes that might later arise.
As the $750 award previously made is confirmed, albeit that the aggravating factors differ from those outlined in the first order, neither party needs to pay the other anything further. I note in this respect that I accept Ms Dawber spoke to tenancy services when the claim was lodged and was advised that she did not then need to lodge the bond at that time, so that is not a factor considered.
I note finally that if further bonds are not lodged then the exemplary damages award is likely to be higher. The landlord’s name is therefore to be published. As the tenants’ bond money more than covered their liability the tenants name is not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639813 — Exemplary damages at 515 Finlays Road, West Melton, RD 5, West Melton 7675

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639813 — Exemplary damages at 515 Finlays Road, West Melton, RD 5, West Melton 7675

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is a fair level of exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is a fair level of exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions